Thomas Howe v Buckinghamshire Council & Anor

At the permission stage of a judicial review, the question is whether the proposed grounds have a realistic prospect of success. In a service-closure decision, individualised assessments are not invariably required. The court must assess whether the decision-maker had sufficient information to reach a rational conclusion, taking account of the scale and context of the reorganisation, available alternatives, institutional knowledge, staffing, transport and planned updated assessments. Reliance on institutional competence may be displaced by prima facie evidence that the underlying analysis is inaccurate or inadequate.

Where proposals change after consultation, further consultation is required only where fairness requires it, particularly where there is a fundamental difference between the consulted proposals and the proposal ultimately adopted. An open consultation may be fair where respondents could address alternative arrangements and the adopted option does not materially worsen the claimant’s position.

The claimant, an adult with significant care needs, sought permission to challenge Buckinghamshire Council’s decision to close Burnham Day Centre while retaining other specialist support sites, including Seeleys House. He argued that the Council had failed adequately to understand individual service users’ needs and had failed to consult on transferring Burnham users to Seeleys. He also challenged the conclusion that the claim had not been brought promptly and sought interim relief.

Permission was refused on the papers by HHJ Dunne, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The claimant renewed the application. The central issues were whether either proposed ground had a realistic prospect of success and whether the application should be refused for delay.

1. Renewed permission application dismissed. The claimant had not shown that either ground had a realistic prospect of success. The application for interim relief therefore fell.
2. Individualised assessments are not required in every decision to close a service. The question is whether the evidence disclosed insufficient information for the Council rationally to conclude that Seeleys or other available options could meet the needs of Burnham users. The issue is fact-sensitive.
3. The Council’s material was high-level and did not contain a granular assessment of each individual’s needs. Nevertheless, the decision was supported by its experience of operating the services, commitments concerning future provision and staffing, modelling of transport and capacity, retention of expertise, planned updated assessments and careful transition arrangements. There were also wider potential alternatives than Seeleys. The claimant’s evidence did not arguably displace the legitimacy of relying on the Council’s institutional competence.
4. The relevant consultation principle is fairness. Further consultation may be required where the proposal ultimately adopted is fundamentally different from the proposals consulted upon. Here, the consultation was sufficiently open to allow respondents to propose retaining Burnham while closing Seeleys or to comment on alternative provision. Retaining Seeleys also provided another possible option and did not make the claimant’s position worse in the relevant sense.
5. The judge would have been reluctant to dismiss the claim for delay had permission otherwise been justified. She did not treat the possible move to Chesham as making the claim academic. The existing costs order was left unchanged because the challenge to the claimed costs lacked detail.

• High Court (Administrative Court): HHJ Dunne, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused permission on the papers on 15 February 2026. On renewal, the High Court dismissed the application, and the application for interim relief fell.